You can get lost inside that EAC data set for weeks, but in moments when you come up for air you'll be able to raise red flags that may help prevent problems this fall.
Black Box Voting is not a fan of the EAC, but the data surveys are actually quite terrific. They show that some locations are refusing to comply (like the entire state of New Hampshire, which refuses to provide even basic numbers like voter registration or number of votes). They provide at least the skeletal framework that has potential for quality control and fraud research.
And the data can be used, in conjunction with other data you find, to identify potential hotspots for trouble this fall.
Remember sixth grade math and story problems? The EAC data tables are a like a set of Lego's for constructing all kinds of interesting story problems. Which counties are most likely to binge and purge voter registration lists? You can get a good idea of that using these data tables. Which counties appear to have been stuffing the ballot box in the past? Yep, that can be divined as well. Hint: Lake County, the Indiana location that couldn't seem to find its votes for so many hours in this year's primary, is one.
THE CRACKERJACK EAC DECODER RINGS FOR THE DATA TABLES
Then you get to do the fun and tedious activity of looking up the secret code in the decoder table to insert it on the top of each column.
But that's just the first decoder ring. Secret Agent Natalie, from Black Box Voting, wondered why none of the data could be summed up or divided for percentage analysis, and found that the EAC, in its infinite wisdom, converted the numeric data to text. What that means is that instead of reading the number "5" your computer reads it as text, like "f-i-v-e" and since it doesn't know how to perform math functions on alphabet letters, you can't perform simple tasks like ranking smallest to biggest, or dividing one number into another to get a percentage.
Black Box Voting has applied both decoder rings to all the data, and is providing the complete decoded, correctly labeled, numerically converted EAC data table as part of our 2008 Tool Kit
Oh, come now! I can’t address Kentucky, but as for Oregon, all your deep, dark supposings add up to just one thing: no voting system ever devised has been foolproof. The critical distinction here is between error-proof and corruption-proof. Sure, signatures don’t always match – but how would you forge signatures – by running around stealing uncompleted ballots from mailboxes? Sure, the post office sometimes screws up, but how could it screw up in favor of one candidate or issue – by comparing unmailed ballots with voter party registrations and “losing” the opposition’s?” Sure, any computerized (or old-fashioned electro-mechanical) tallying system can be manipulated, but Oregon ballots are paper and very easy to check visually (unlike even blank cards with holes punched in them). Could they be stolen by evil librarians (who preside over official drop boxes) and government workers? Well, theoretically – but then, whose can’t? The bottom line is that well-managed mail-in voting is no more susceptible to errors than any and it’s less vulnerable to corruption than many alternatives. If you like deep, dark, designs, I'd suggest resuming speculation about Roswell, NM.
by
Jim Stinson (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 64 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 4:10:06 PM
We know -- absolutely, positively KNOW, that you don't mail out 2,500,000 items and have zero return undeliverable. We know -- absolutely, positively KNOW, that if 1,400,000 people mail something in, you are likely to have more than 50 arrive late, if for no other reason than the post office flubbed a few or (gasp!) one or two or a few dozen Oregonians may have mailed their ballot from out of state.
So the bookkeeping is wrong, Jim, and this year, in 2008, WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE OOPS EXCUSE on election accounting figures. If your bank sends you a bank statement that lists 23 checks on it but you know that you wrote 29 checks, will you shrug and say "no one's perfect!"
No.
As to your contention that there would never be signature fraud, I'm wondering if you've done very much research on absentee ballot fraud. It has quite a history, and one of the places you find it, incidentally, is Kentucky. Now, you may want to contend that all people in Oregon are honest whereas all people in Kentucky are not, but I'm not sure I'd buy that. And gosh, what if someone from Kentucky moved to Oregon?
The protective systems are there for a reason. If they are not followed, elections are not protected.
My job is election protection. Dunno what yours is -- ridiculing election protection efforts? Does it pay well?
by
Bev Harris (78 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 5:51:29 PM
Okay, but you might put more effort into addressing my actual objections and less to making snide remarks about my motives. I've worked for myself for 30 years; and though that's a poor way to make money, it does leave you beholden to no one.
by
Jim Stinson (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 64 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 8:32:32 PM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
